Saia v. New York, 334U.S. 558 (1948), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an ordinance which prohibited the use of sound amplification devices except with permission of the Chief of Police was unconstitutional on its face because it established a prior restraint on the right of free speech in violation of the First Amendment.[1]
People v. Saia, 297 N.Y. 659, 76 N.E.2d 323 (1947); probable jurisdiction noted, 68 S. Ct. 454 (1948).
Holding
New York's law prohibiting the use of sound amplification devices without consent from the chief of police is an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.
Saia, a minister of the Jehovah's Witnesses, obtained from the Lockport, New York Chief of Police permission to use sound equipment mounted on his car to amplify lectures on religious subjects. The lectures were given at a fixed place in a public park on designated Sundays. When this permit expired, he applied for another one but was refused on the ground that complaints had been made. Saia nevertheless used his equipment as planned on four occasions, but without a permit. Fines and jail sentences were imposed, which were affirmed without opinion by the County Court for Niagara County and by the New York Court of Appeals.[2]
Prior historyedit
Saia was tried in Police Court for violations of the ordinance. It was undisputed that he used his equipment to amplify speeches in the park and that they were on religious subjects. Some witnesses testified that they were annoyed by the sound, though not by the content of the addresses; others were not disturbed by either. The court upheld the ordinance against the contention that it violated appellant's rights of freedom of speech, assembly, and worship under the Federal Constitution. Fines and jail sentences were imposed. His convictions were affirmed without opinion by the County Court for Niagara County and by the New York Court of Appeals, 297 N.Y. 659, 76 N.E.2d 323.
We hold that 3 of this ordinance is unconstitutional on its face, for it establishes a previous restraint on the [334 U.S. 558, 560] right of free speech in violation of the First Amendment which is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against State action. To use a loud- speaker or amplifier one has to get a permit from the Chief of Police. There are no standards prescribed for the exercise of his discretion. The statute is not narrowly drawn to regulate the hours or places of use of loud-speakers, or the volume of sound (the decibels) to which they must be adjusted. The ordinance therefore has all the vices of the ones which we struck down in Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 128 A.L.R. 1352; Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444; and Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496.[3]
Text of Saia v. New York,334U.S. 558 (1948) is available from:CourtListenerGoogle ScholarJustiaLibrary of CongressOpenJurist This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
saia, york, 1948, case, which, supreme, court, united, states, held, that, ordinance, which, prohibited, sound, amplification, devices, except, with, permission, chief, police, unconstitutional, face, because, established, prior, restraint, right, free, speech. Saia v New York 334 U S 558 1948 was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an ordinance which prohibited the use of sound amplification devices except with permission of the Chief of Police was unconstitutional on its face because it established a prior restraint on the right of free speech in violation of the First Amendment 1 Saia v New YorkSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued March 30 1948Decided June 7 1948Full case nameSaia v New YorkCitations334 U S 558 more 68 S Ct 1148 92 L Ed 1574 1948 U S LEXIS 2086Case historyPriorPeople v Saia 297 N Y 659 76 N E 2d 323 1947 probable jurisdiction noted 68 S Ct 454 1948 HoldingNew York s law prohibiting the use of sound amplification devices without consent from the chief of police is an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech Court membershipChief Justice Fred M Vinson Associate Justices Hugo Black Stanley F ReedFelix Frankfurter William O DouglasFrank Murphy Robert H JacksonWiley B Rutledge Harold H BurtonCase opinionsMajorityDouglas joined by Vinson Black Murphy RutledgeConcur dissentFrankfurter Reed BurtonDissentJacksonLaws appliedU S Const amends I XIV Wikisource has original text related to this article Saia v New York Contents 1 Facts of the case 2 Prior history 3 Decision of the Court 4 See also 5 Sources 6 ReferencesFacts of the case editSaia a minister of the Jehovah s Witnesses obtained from the Lockport New York Chief of Police permission to use sound equipment mounted on his car to amplify lectures on religious subjects The lectures were given at a fixed place in a public park on designated Sundays When this permit expired he applied for another one but was refused on the ground that complaints had been made Saia nevertheless used his equipment as planned on four occasions but without a permit Fines and jail sentences were imposed which were affirmed without opinion by the County Court for Niagara County and by the New York Court of Appeals 2 Prior history editSaia was tried in Police Court for violations of the ordinance It was undisputed that he used his equipment to amplify speeches in the park and that they were on religious subjects Some witnesses testified that they were annoyed by the sound though not by the content of the addresses others were not disturbed by either The court upheld the ordinance against the contention that it violated appellant s rights of freedom of speech assembly and worship under the Federal Constitution Fines and jail sentences were imposed His convictions were affirmed without opinion by the County Court for Niagara County and by the New York Court of Appeals 297 N Y 659 76 N E 2d 323 Decision of the Court editJustice William O Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court writing We hold that 3 of this ordinance is unconstitutional on its face for it establishes a previous restraint on the 334 U S 558 560 right of free speech in violation of the First Amendment which is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against State action To use a loud speaker or amplifier one has to get a permit from the Chief of Police There are no standards prescribed for the exercise of his discretion The statute is not narrowly drawn to regulate the hours or places of use of loud speakers or the volume of sound the decibels to which they must be adjusted The ordinance therefore has all the vices of the ones which we struck down in Cantwell v Connecticut 310 U S 296 128 A L R 1352 Lovell v Griffin 303 U S 444 and Hague v C I O 307 U S 496 3 See also editList of United States Supreme Court cases volume 334Sources editText of Saia v New York 334 U S 558 1948 is available from CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress OpenJurist nbsp This article incorporates text from this source which is in the public domain References edit Saia v New York 334 U S 558 1948 Saia 334 U S at 559 citing New York Court of Appeals decision 297 N Y 659 76 N E 2d 323 Saia 334 U S at 559 60 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Saia v New York amp oldid 1187566885, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
